The Future of TV
A couple of events of recent times:
1. Google released something call Chromecast.
2. Net Neutrality has lost ground.
I don't think they are unrelated.
First, what is Chromecast? If you haven't already gotten the buzz on this it is an extremely nifty little tool - a USB device - that you plug into your tv that is equipped with an appropriate port.
Now, you can "stream" video from any WiFi enabled device to your big screen TV.
And it is only $35.
I got one recently, and I wasn't sure I'd use it. Wrong! It plugs in. You download the app to your smart phone, or iPad, or TV (and it will seamlessly download from the Cloud if you're so equipped), and then access any of the many options for streaming TV and movie programming to your big screen. It takes about 5 or 10 minutes to set up, and that's that. It's so easy I'm pretty sure my mom could handle it! We recently got her a Roku, by contrast, and she's already forgotten how to access it. I also have an Apple TV, and while I like it, I don't find it nearly as easy to navigate, and it certainly wasn't as simple to set up. And of course it was over $100 (at the time, now they're about $99).
Now, here's what is truly amazing to me: the picture quality is the best thing that has ever played on my TV. I watched a movie on a friend's BluRay, and I thought I'd died and gone to heaven the quality was so good. Watching a Chromecast HD TV show was right up there with the angels.
Now, what has this got to do with Net Neutrality?
Well, if you were reliant upon advertising to create your product, or if you sold your product via (relatively pricey) subscription, would you be concerned?
Net Neutrality, remember, is the principal that all ISPs should provide all content, applications, and services, regardless of the source, and not block, throttle down, or block any content. So in other words, if the ISP wanted to charge you more for viewing Netflix, or throttled down the "free" version and charged more for the paid version, if Net Neutrality were not in practice, you could be out of luck, Chromecast or no.
When access to this kind of service was a couple of hundred dollars, Net Neutrality was a concern but probably not a real threat. Now that you can have the whole of the Internet - including full length programming on YouTube, Hulu and Hulu Plus, Netflix, Amazon Prime and more - on your HD big screen, and full speed and full size (no watching on your iPad as I used to do with Amazon Prime!) - there's something to be concerned about.
Yes, there are some arguments against Net Neutrality. For example, there are sites that are "hate" filled, and some people feel that it's appropriate for providers to block them. And perhaps it is right that the ISP somehow make some money off us watching TV on our "second screen" versus our "first," particularly as the original programming costs a lot of money to produce. Somehow, in fairness, everyone in the chain has to get paid for programming - and some of it is really high end stuff (think, Game of Thrones) - from the producers to the distributors to the providers.
On the other hand, from the standpoint of Net Neutrality advocates, we should be able to make our own deals for the content we access, from its nature to its price.
Either way, the heat got turned up on Net Neutrality, and I can't think that it had nothing to do with Chromecast being so incredibly fast, easy to use - and cheap.
1. Google released something call Chromecast.
2. Net Neutrality has lost ground.
I don't think they are unrelated.
First, what is Chromecast? If you haven't already gotten the buzz on this it is an extremely nifty little tool - a USB device - that you plug into your tv that is equipped with an appropriate port.
Now, you can "stream" video from any WiFi enabled device to your big screen TV.
And it is only $35.
I got one recently, and I wasn't sure I'd use it. Wrong! It plugs in. You download the app to your smart phone, or iPad, or TV (and it will seamlessly download from the Cloud if you're so equipped), and then access any of the many options for streaming TV and movie programming to your big screen. It takes about 5 or 10 minutes to set up, and that's that. It's so easy I'm pretty sure my mom could handle it! We recently got her a Roku, by contrast, and she's already forgotten how to access it. I also have an Apple TV, and while I like it, I don't find it nearly as easy to navigate, and it certainly wasn't as simple to set up. And of course it was over $100 (at the time, now they're about $99).
Now, here's what is truly amazing to me: the picture quality is the best thing that has ever played on my TV. I watched a movie on a friend's BluRay, and I thought I'd died and gone to heaven the quality was so good. Watching a Chromecast HD TV show was right up there with the angels.
Now, what has this got to do with Net Neutrality?
Well, if you were reliant upon advertising to create your product, or if you sold your product via (relatively pricey) subscription, would you be concerned?
Net Neutrality, remember, is the principal that all ISPs should provide all content, applications, and services, regardless of the source, and not block, throttle down, or block any content. So in other words, if the ISP wanted to charge you more for viewing Netflix, or throttled down the "free" version and charged more for the paid version, if Net Neutrality were not in practice, you could be out of luck, Chromecast or no.
When access to this kind of service was a couple of hundred dollars, Net Neutrality was a concern but probably not a real threat. Now that you can have the whole of the Internet - including full length programming on YouTube, Hulu and Hulu Plus, Netflix, Amazon Prime and more - on your HD big screen, and full speed and full size (no watching on your iPad as I used to do with Amazon Prime!) - there's something to be concerned about.
Yes, there are some arguments against Net Neutrality. For example, there are sites that are "hate" filled, and some people feel that it's appropriate for providers to block them. And perhaps it is right that the ISP somehow make some money off us watching TV on our "second screen" versus our "first," particularly as the original programming costs a lot of money to produce. Somehow, in fairness, everyone in the chain has to get paid for programming - and some of it is really high end stuff (think, Game of Thrones) - from the producers to the distributors to the providers.
On the other hand, from the standpoint of Net Neutrality advocates, we should be able to make our own deals for the content we access, from its nature to its price.
Either way, the heat got turned up on Net Neutrality, and I can't think that it had nothing to do with Chromecast being so incredibly fast, easy to use - and cheap.
Comments